This article takes a broad look at innovation in ancient Rome particularly as
an aspect influencing ancient Roman
inventions and ancient Roman
technology. A number of significant aspects which influence
technology and innovation will be considered:

Introduction to ancient Roman innovation

The common view is that the sciences such as mathematics and physics were
very much a Greek success rather than a "Roman" one and that innovation was a
"foreign" thing which the Romans put to their own use. This article doesn’t
attempt to reverse such a view but rather to place some context around the
subject so that a broader perspective might be taken.

To begin with it is worth pointing out that with the term "innovation" we are
going to concentrate on ancient roman technology as opposed to other forms of
innovation, for example in ancient Roman law (which inspired the legal systems
of half the world to this day). If we took the broader view we might have
considered "innovations" such as:

Lucretius’ (99-55BC)
wonderful poem "On the Nature of Things" which argues in favour of atomism
and against the superstition of religion.

Galen (129-216AD) the most famous exponent of
ancient Roman medicine who further
supported atomism (which disappeared during the Christianised middle ages
and only reappeared in the 17th century – the age of reason)

The philosophical skepticism of Sextus Empiricus around 200AD (note the
importance in modern science of "empiricism" and "method")

The neoplatonist philosophy of Plotinus (AD205-270) deeply influential
on later religion

Clearly, innovation is not limited to the learned "scientists" of society, it
is also achievable by those who are engaged in day-to-day jobs and in commerce
so long as they have adequate access to knowledge (education), funds, resources,
time and a "prize" to go for.

Going a level deeper we can also say that for an innovation to have success
it also requires

fertile ground, ie sufficiently specialised industrial centres
into which it can be integrated (and here we have to admit
Rome bore some benefit to would-be inventors). What’s the use of an
invention without an application?

a "sufficiently" developed economy. This latter statement is
intended to be broad, not only because of the important role that
financing plays in innovation but also because of the important role
of job specialization in such economies. It only takes a brief
look at the varietyof ancient Roman
jobs to see that the roman economy
provided a good humus.

For example, it is easy to imagine that all the above factors were likely
present for innovation in military technology and the evidence is that the
ancient Roman army was regularly open to adapt for
innovation in Roman weapons,
roman armorand strategies.

So how did the factors mentioned above come to play in ancient Roman
innovation?

We should begin with some definition and considering that subjects such as
technology, mathematics, astronomy, physics and so on were considered "arts",
closely associated with philosophy. This was a reality in Greece and Egypt as
much as it was in the rest of the civilized world of the time, including Rome.

which happened to be more focused around the ability to
debate and be active in public roles.

Entrepreneurial inspiration as part of your daily work

The degree and mode by which the factors mentioned came together very much
depended on which of the two paths you might have followed had you wished to
become an innovator or inventor in ancient Rome….

Innovation greatly benefits from the support of the educated and wealthy,
which in ancient Roman terms tends to imply the support of the rich
Patrician class or of the richer merchants. The Roman nobility and upper
classes tended to place great value on military and public roles such as the
law or politics. Mercantile trade and industry was considered as inferior
and demeaning to the upper class and as such didn’t attract neither the
brains nor the funds to bring innovation into daily use.

This social attitude also meant that wealth of the nobility tended to be
spent on the creation of large farming estates rather than other types of
industry which was rather left to their "clients",
often of foreign provenance.

In spite of the gradual
evolution of Roman
society over almost 1000 years there was hardly a moment where the
balance swung in the favour of innovation for industry.

"Invention" and discovery are closely associated with (a) access to
information and (b) scientific progress.

With respect to (a) it is useful to consider the huge development of
ancient Roman libraries, book shops
and schooling. Certainly literacy reached great levels, particularly for such an
ancient society but was perhaps overly focused on
literature and "classics" (yes even
the Roman students themselves complained of the excessive focus on traditional
texts rather than the more up to date works of the likes of Martial).

So whilst scientific information was certainly available in at least the most
important libraries, such as the
library of Alexandria, there is little evidence that there was diffuse
knowledge or dissemination of technological know-how. Rich Patricians also
regarded the possession of a library as something worthwhile and commendable:
many of these were transferred to the monasteries in medieval times; and, we
might add with a note of Innis' cynicism, used with much the same objective of
holding and wielding earthly power through (scientific) knowledge rather than
furthering it for the sake of discovery….

Whilst mentioning libraries it is interesting to note the Library of Celsus
in Ephesus (now Turkey) built in memory of a
Roman Consul
of Greek origin. 120,000 scrolls housed in a public library completed in 135AD
at the personal expense of the consul’s son for the common good. "Of course they
were Greek!" you might say – but the wealth that enabled it was Roman: Celsus
was a military commander close to emperor
Vespasian. A great example of how the union of Romanisation with Greek
thought enabled culture to spread and grow.

Ancient Roman schooling was
largely a private affair, focused around the arts such as philosophy and
rhetoric and for those who could afford it, aimed at the development of an
individual’s public/political career as
Roman magistrates.
Learning about technology would have been restricted to learning architecture
and construction from a restricted number of architects, or through one’s master
in a trade guild or alternatively to military engineers (if you were in the
army).

(b) – "Scientific progress" we need but look at a range of the books and a
handful of artifacts which have survived through the ages to get a sense of the
technological level achieved. For example

Physical artefacts include, bilge pumps in gold mines, piping and valve
systems, the Antikythera artefact, descriptions of a ball which self propelled
by the action of expanding steam, the
Pantheon (which remained the largest single-span dome in the western world
through to the 19th century)...

Much of the most advanced knowledge was carefully guarded at sites such
as the great library at the city of ancient
Alexandria or sites of learning such as Athens.

Whilst our general tendency is to think of "horse drawn cart"-level of
technology we need but look at amazing finds like the Antikythera mechanism
to be astounded: it’s complexity is akin to that of the 18th or
19th century. So why didn’t such technology and skill get spread
throughout the empire? Perhaps because it’s only recognized use was for
intellectual interest: it lacked a useful ready market. It lacked demand.

Knowledge transfer goes beyond simple communications because we consider
that knowledge resides in individuals, tasks they perform and tools they
use. It may also be a distributed knowledge across group members and as such
it can often be difficult to articulate and communicate in a succinct form.

Taken from a modern standpoint, there is increasing focus around policies
which incentivize knowledge transfer between academia, public sector and
industry in order to foster wealth and job creation.

The power of knowledge was recognized in the ancient world also: a
perfect example of this was the library at Alexandria which was physically
linked with the royal palace, although such a close control of the public
sphere over the academics can often yield sterile results.

Knowledge transfer within the ancient world was clearly only a shadow of
what it might be in the modern world:
upper class Roman
citizens would necessarily have to take a period of study abroad in
order to find the best teachers. The pax romana
and the extensive infrastructure built across
the Roman empire enabled peaceful travel for those who wished to go to other
countries to learn, for example in Greece or north Africa (where there were
many recognized schools of Rhetoric).

However, we should not stop at the thought of simply transmitting
academic knowledge: Well developed Roman
ships and shipping routes allowed mercantile trade to proliferate and
with it so too the travel of culture and ideas which could find fertile
ground in other parts of the empire.

The written medium was also well developed, usually in the form of
scrolls although with time the codex (book) also developed. Wax tablets
might also be used although they were clearly more prone to being erased.
Having said that, a number of contracts and financial documents have been
discovered in the form of wax tablets (actually wood which closes into a 3
part book with wax on the internal face).

Roman emperors such as
Augustus, TrajanandVespasian are all known for their close
connection with the transmission of knowledge and learning. Augustus founded
some of the first libraries in the forum, Trajan founded the Ulpian library
which had separate Greek and Latin wings. Vespasian is known for having done
his best to incentivize foreign academics to come to Rome; perhaps more as a
means of saving cash outflow from Rome, but even if that were so we can
infer that the number of Roman citizens travelling for educational purposes
must have been considerable!

The ancient Roman economy
was based on a relatively well developed banking system, complete with a
variety of loan types, also including mortgages. The far reach of the
empire, well developed infrastructure, the access to distant markets and
access to financing should have provided very fertile ground for a broad
range of innovation – perhaps this was most prevalent in certain sectors
than others. It certainly encouraged the travel of foreign deities, luxury
items and industrial techniques such as Roman
glass making. New crops also travelled with the traders and military
campaigns such as wine and grain (soft grain induced a revolution in baking
and diet not to mention farming and dietary customs in general). The
techniques for producing relief decorated pottery (known as "Aretine") are
one example of a local Italian innovation spreading out to other parts of
the empire so that competing manufacturing centres were created in places
such as Gaul and north Africa.

A brief glimpse at the broad range of every-day artifacts found at
Pompeii soon gives an idea of the extreme range of
development reached. Highly specialized surgical tools, heating systems,
water distribution and even accurate water
metering systems to allow for time-based water supply contracts!

Many of these innovations came from abroad, many more were developed
locally. Within the lens of "access to resources" it is worth noting that
many of the everyday technologies and innovations would have been left in
the hands of those who practiced those jobs
which frequently implied foreign slaves, freed men or foreign visitors.

At this point it is worth remembering that as the
Roman
plebeian classes became weaker and poorer they often found it more
convenient to sell themselves into slavery and live under the tutelage of a
rich patrician. This gives an idea of the likelihood that the right slave
with the right knowledge (say a cook, or a doctor or…) under the tutelage of
the right master could have access to the necessary resources to develop his
tools of the trade.

Job specialization, industrial value chains (ie a cluster of industry
around a given raw material or product), entrepreneurial drive were all
drivers of innovation in Roman times like in modern times BUT, be it due to
social stigma, political will or to social necessities, that drive tended to
be diverted towards applications such as civil engineering and military
applications, ie furthering conquest, ensuring economic peace within the
empire and tending to the needs of the plebeian masses.

There were evidently cases of innovator/inventors such as the cases
described further below with Emperor
Vespasian and Emperor Tiberius: in
both cases the invention in question was suppressed in order to defend other
economic interests and at least in Vespasian’s case, for the fear of
breaking the social status quo - imagine if the poor masses had had to
contend with massive job losses produced by innovation – would the empire’s
coffers have withstood the impact?

In the writer’s judgment this aspect coupled with Patrician disdain for
basic industry (other than agriculture) was perhaps the most significant
drag on Roman ability to innovate.

We mention a few names worthy of note for ancient technology and innovation.
The persons involved are Greeks or of Greek roots - it is worth noting that the
Greek colonies in southern Italy were completely overrun by the Romans by 264BC.
Greece came under Roman rule around 146BC ie Ctesibius left an important
technological legacy but was never under Roman rule. Archimedes was actually
killed by a Roman soldier when the Greek colony of Syracuse in southern Italy
was taken. The astronomer/engineer Hipparchus was already middle-aged when
Greece came under Roman control and

Ctesibius (285-222BC) – can hardly be considered a Roman but his
work was extensively used and disseminated within the Roman empire. Water
organs were an elitist attraction.

Archimedes (287 - 212BC) - Killed by a Roman soldier in
spite of orders not to harm him when his hometown of Syracuse in southern
Italy was taken. His enormous contribution to science, mathematics and
technology includes the famous screw pump (for water) which bears his name.
His contribution to science was recognised in his day;
Cicero gives an account of
visiting his tomb.

Hipparchus (190BC-120BC) - developed trigonometry.

Hero of Alexandria (10-70AD) – definitely present during the
golden age of the Roman empire – generally considered as the greatest
experimenter of antiquity

Ptolemy (AD90-AD168) - A roman citizen of Egypt who worked at
ancient Alexandria during the reigns of
emperor Claudius and
emperor Nero. Wrote a variety of books on
subjects such as astronomy, optics and geography which heavily influenced
medieval European and Middle Eastern science.

Clearly the list could be made much longer, especially if we take the broad
definition of what was considered to fall under the collective term of the
"arts" in antiquity.

In terms of strictly "Roman" contribution we should not forget to add the
likes of Vitruvius and Pliny who through
their works and manuscripts managed to collect and disseminate technical
know-how of the day.

Conclusion: Taking a fresh look at Innovation in ancient Rome and
understanding the interplay of the driving factors described above

Looking at the list of inventions and coupling that with the technology
available to the ancient Romans, one thing is particularly surprising: the
fundamental technological elements which would have permitted a Roman
industrial revolution were all there to be had. For example, all the
elements of a steam engine, and if we couple that with the intricacy and
mechanical detail of the Antikythera mechanism (made in Greece in the 1st
century BC) we can immediately see that the ancient Romans had access to
technology which is easily comparable to pre-industrial western Europe.

There are a couple of clues as to what might have lain in the way of the
development of an industrial era in the ancient Roman economy:

Social issue:

Much like the technology in the Antikythera artefact
seems to have been restricted to an object of intellectual exercise
(planetarium) and other examples of mechanization were restricted to making
theatrical props, automata and even coin operated machines

Christian belief:

Lucretius’ book "De Rerum Natura" likewise builds
upon Greek (Epicurean) philosophy to expound the fundamentals of atomism. In
a sense we can regard Lucretius as being a creationist long before Darwin.
His objective was to use science for a human purpose: that of removing the
fear of death and belief in superstition/religion – Christianity had the
better of his philosophy until the 17th century.

A desire for political and social stability:

Suetonius gives an
interesting clue to the problem in Life of Vespasian chpt18: "To a
mechanical engineer, who promised to transport some heavy columns to the
Capitol at small expense, he gave no mean reward for his invention, but
refused to make use of it, saying: "You must let me feed my poor commons."

Tacitus (on
Tiberius, chapter 42), Pliny (NH book 36 chapt26) and Petronius Arbiter
(Satyricon) all tell an anecdote of
emperor Tiberius destroying the secret behind a particular kind of
malleable glass by executing its inventor in case it should destroy the
market for precious metal ware. Pliny and Petronius tell it whilst
casting doubt on its truth.

Why didn’t innovation in Ancient Rome go further? Looking for clues in
the European Renaissance and English Industrial Revolution

The most obvious answer seems to be that in ancient Rome there was little
or no evident personal or economic stimulus for individuals to use
technology as a means of gaining personal advantage. No demand = No supply
and so what technology there was was relegated to artifacts which satisfied
intellectual curiosity or to military uses.

Or, going beyond the lack of incentive we can consider there was possibly
even a disincentive particularly in imperial times: Technology might
change the status quo which suited the ruling classes, it might even cause
social disorder as slaves and plebeians lose jobs, and hence greater
pressure on state finances.

Last but not least the later periods of the Empire had to contend with
early Christianity which was
generally opposed to philosophical/scientific thought as a threat or heresy.

A further clue as to why innovation didn’t (perhaps) go as far as it
could might be had in observing what factors influenced the blossoming of
the industrial revolutionin 18th century
Britain (1750-1830). 1760 is the date most commondly referred to): New
advanced banking system, Stability, Capitalism, Capital (competition)
entered from the colonies: it doubled prices and incentivised investment,
giving the wealthy more money to invest in new ventures. Most importantly,
in Britain, the wealthy upper and middle classes saw nothing wrong with
investing their wealth in technology and commerce, be it directly or
indirectly through the stock exchange. This can be compared to their French
counterparts of the time who, particularly the nobility, would indeed
have had an issue with "dirty" commerce: a social attitude termed
"derogeance".